Jacinda Ardern’s calls for censorship is a ‘war on freedom

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Watching Netflix's Universe yesterday reinforced for me both our amazing luck in existing at all, and the rather simple way we are all interconnected.

Recommended watching. Except the elephant bit. With the lions. Bastards.

[Lilith7]

A swift google shows that veganism is increasing; producing or selling Vegan products may be lucrative, & eating & using vegan products just may be the way of the future for many of us.
Its apparently fairly widespread in Europe.

https://sentientmedia.org/increase-in-veganism/

"While the data online about veganism’s growth is not comprehensive, the Guardian estimates that there are 79 million vegans around the world.

Veganism is a philosophy that seeks to avoid the unnecessary suffering of all sentient beings, practiced as a diet and lifestyle in which individuals choose to avoid ingesting or using products made from animals. It could also be considered a social movement.
The term’s popularity has increased since 2004, when data first became available, and peaked in January 2020. It first surpassed “beef” as a search term in 2016, and they are now steady competitors for search interest."


https://foodrevolution.org/blog/vegan-st...cs-global/

"Sometime in the mid-2010s, many people shifted from using the word “vegan” to “plant-based,” transforming this way of eating into something more inclusive and welcoming to larger sections of society.

Now, in many areas, finding plant-based alternatives for everything from beef to eggs to dairy products (like cheese, butter, and ice cream) can be as easy as walking through mainstream grocery stores. Even many restaurants have added more plant-based items to their menus, or at least offer them as an option. Plus, plant-based foods taste better than ever — some so close to their animal-derived counterparts that it’s hard to tell the difference."

[C_T_Russell]

You seem to interpret what you see and hear very differently to most people CT

I didn't see or hear anything like that in her speech (linked)
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-...ch-1747546

Newsweek labeled the claim misinformation FWIW

But she does want censorship and it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech.
If you actually look at whats going down over on twitter, elon musk has been exposing all the censorship that happened there with the past management, it seems many governments were telling them what to censor.

[Lilith7]

You seem to interpret what you see and hear very differently to most people CT

I didn't see or hear anything like that in her speech (linked)
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-...ch-1747546

Newsweek labeled the claim misinformation FWIW

But she does want censorship and it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech.
If you actually look at whats going down over on twitter, elon musk has been exposing all the censorship that happened there with the past management, it seems many governments were telling them what to censor.

" it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech."

Is it bollocks.

 It is an attempt to rein in idiots pushing hate speech. Particularly the type of hate speech which disparages a particular group of people such as Maori, Jewish, African or Muslim people.
Anyone will be free to say whatever they like as long as they're not using hate speech to disparage or arouse hatred against others.

In some countries, it will in future include misogyny. And not before time.


https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_com...t-s-needed

[king1]

You seem to interpret what you see and hear very differently to most people CT

I didn't see or hear anything like that in her speech (linked)
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-...ch-1747546

Newsweek labeled the claim misinformation FWIW

But she does want censorship and it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech.
If you actually look at whats going down over on twitter, elon musk has been exposing all the censorship that happened there with the past management, it seems many governments were telling them what to censor.

the kind of free speech your advocating for leads to people committing suicide, or worse, killing other people...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

CT, tell me please, what is so good about free speech if it causes harm?

Is it not a bit like handing out free guns to all and sundry?

[C_T_Russell]

But she does want censorship and it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech.
If you actually look at whats going down over on twitter, elon musk has been exposing all the censorship that happened there with the past management, it seems many governments were telling them what to censor.

" it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech."

Is it bollocks.

 It is an attempt to rein in idiots pushing hate speech. Particularly the type of hate speech which disparages a particular group of people such as Maori, Jewish, African or Muslim people.
Anyone will be free to say whatever they like as long as they're not using hate speech to disparage or arouse hatred against others.

In some countries, it will in future include misogyny. And not before time.


https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_com...t-s-needed

Please define "hate" speech?
I "hate" the religion, cult i grew up in.
I should be able to freely speak against it, the truth is these cults get automatic protection under the umbrella of religion, when in reality they are not.

Are you saying i have to love this cult that destroys lives, protects pedophiles and shuns their family members who choose to leave (they cant leave freely)?

Thats why free speech is important, even if some disagree to whats being said.

---

CT, tell me please, what is so good about free speech if it causes harm?

Is it not a bit like handing out free guns to all and sundry?

see my post above.

[Lilith7]

" it looks like she is trying to push this "hate speech" bill though again which is an attack on free speech."

Is it bollocks.

 It is an attempt to rein in idiots pushing hate speech. Particularly the type of hate speech which disparages a particular group of people such as Maori, Jewish, African or Muslim people.
Anyone will be free to say whatever they like as long as they're not using hate speech to disparage or arouse hatred against others.

In some countries, it will in future include misogyny. And not before time.


https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_com...t-s-needed

Please define "hate" speech?
I "hate" the religion, cult i grew up in.
I should be able to freely speak against it, the truth is these cults get automatic protection under the umbrella of religion, when in reality they are not.

Are you saying i have to love this cult that destroys lives, protects pedophiles and shuns their family members who choose to leave (they cant leave freely)?

Thats why free speech is important, even if some disagree to whats being said.

---

CT, tell me please, what is so good about free speech if it causes harm?

Is it not a bit like handing out free guns to all and sundry?

see my post above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speec...by_country

"Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation"

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/nzs-hate-spee...-explained

"Since the March 15 terror attack, when the Government pledged a review of hate speech legislation, the issue has attracted more than its fair share of hyperbole and fearmongering.

Hate speech is a complex issue at the best of times, trying to strike the fine balance between the right to freedom of expression and the rights of people to live their lives freely without facing threats on the basis of their immutable characteristics.

New Zealand has had hate speech laws on the books in one form or another for decades. The current iteration came into effect in 1993, when the Human Rights Act was passed.

It creates civil remedies and criminal offences for "inciting racial disharmony". If found guilty of the criminal offence, a person can be imprisoned for up to three months or made to pay a fine of up to $7000.

In order to have breached the law, a person has to have published, broadcast or said in public words which are "threatening, abusive, or insulting" that are "likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule" any group of people based on their skin colour, race, ethnicity or national origin while intending to do so.

Given this consistent narrowing of the application of the law, there has only been one successful prosecution for inciting racial disharmony in the 29 years the Human Rights Act has been in effect. That came last year, when Tauranga man Richard Jacobs posted a YouTube video calling for genocide and a race war against Māori."


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...hate-speec

 

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):

Citing a law prohibiting hate speech against a minority, a district court sentenced him to a month in prison."

[king1]

The key point CT is that you are absolutely free in NZ to voice your opinion about religion and cults and anything else that comes to mind.

Where limits are imposed is when there is a real risk of violence resulting from those spoken words - either by the speaker or one of the listeners (mis)interpreting the words spoken... It is one thing to say the Brethren, Jehovah Witness. et al are a bunch of controlling scumbags, but crosses a line to intend them harm...

The very real effects of this can be seen in the parliament protests - a select few whip up a frenzy, and the more impressionable members of society start to believe and act upon the words...

Now do we deal with this issue by nipping the problem in the bud before it gets out of hand (by having laws), or do we wait until the violence has occurred ie the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff...

[C_T_Russell]

The key point CT is that you are absolutely free in NZ to voice your opinion about religion and cults and anything else that comes to mind. 

Where limits are imposed is when there is a real risk of violence resulting from those spoken words - either by the speaker or one of the listeners (mis)interpreting the words spoken...  It is one thing to say the Brethren, Jehovah Witness. et al are a bunch of controlling scumbags, but crosses a line to intend them harm...

The very real effects of this can be seen in the parliament protests - a select few whip up a frenzy, and the more impressionable members of society start to believe and act upon the words... 

Now do we deal with this issue by nipping the problem in the bud before it gets out of hand (by having laws), or do we wait until the violence has occurred ie the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff...

Well yes I agree with you there. My main concern is what actually ends up getting defined as hate speech.
I know other activists have been concerned about this, worrying that anything critical could be observed as hate speech.

[king1]

The key point CT is that you are absolutely free in NZ to voice your opinion about religion and cults and anything else that comes to mind. 

Where limits are imposed is when there is a real risk of violence resulting from those spoken words - either by the speaker or one of the listeners (mis)interpreting the words spoken...  It is one thing to say the Brethren, Jehovah Witness. et al are a bunch of controlling scumbags, but crosses a line to intend them harm...

The very real effects of this can be seen in the parliament protests - a select few whip up a frenzy, and the more impressionable members of society start to believe and act upon the words... 

Now do we deal with this issue by nipping the problem in the bud before it gets out of hand (by having laws), or do we wait until the violence has occurred ie the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff...

Well yes I agree with you there. My main concern is what actually ends up getting defined as hate speech.
I know other activists have been concerned about this, worrying that anything critical could be observed as hate speech.

Thank goodness we live in a democracy...

Proof of point the government back down on that entrenchment clause.  Some will see it as a win over labour or proof that they're part of some global agenda - I simply see it as democracy working as it should...

[C_T_Russell]

Well yes I agree with you there. My main concern is what actually ends up getting defined as hate speech.
I know other activists have been concerned about this, worrying that anything critical could be observed as hate speech.

Thank goodness we live in a democracy...

Proof of point the government back down on that entrenchment clause.  Some will see it as a win over labour or proof that they're part of some global agenda - I simply see it as democracy working as it should...

Well its pretty obvious the whole thing backfired on jacinda regarding the entrenchment.
Her popularity has dropped through the roof in recent, not just because of three waters but also the level of crime and dairy stabbings, etc.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I gave up hate a long time ago, it just takes too much energy to maintain.

These days I just accept that humanity is a lost cause and I celebrate the occasional exceptions to that state of affairs.

I recommend it, way less stress involved...

---

I think most people misinterpretted the entrenchment thing. I think most people support the Green's preference that water never ever be privatised, without realising the entrenchment clause was the government's way of ensuring that protection remained in place.

Without it, future governments can overturn any protections, and flog off control of our water to the highest bidder.

Probably Nestle, or Schweppes..

Then gods help anyone trying to capture rainwater. It'll be a  breach of copyright. Monsanto all over again.

[Lilith7]

I gave up hate a long time ago, it just takes too much energy to maintain.

These days I just accept that humanity is a lost cause and I celebrate the occasional exceptions to that state of affairs.

I recommend it, way less stress involved...

---

I think most people misinterpretted the entrenchment thing. I think most people support the Green's preference that water never ever be privatised, without realising the entrenchment clause was the government's way of ensuring that protection remained in place.

Without it, future governments can overturn any protections, and flog off control of our water to the highest bidder.

Probably Nestle, or Schweppes..

Then gods help anyone trying to capture rainwater. It'll be a  breach of copyright. Monsanto all over again.

I think it would be an excellent move to make it illegal to sell water from this country to any business or person, & make it ironclad to avoid any future govts meddling. If we don't turn back the tide of Neo Liberal greed, they'll sell everything not nailed down. Bastards.

[Wainuiguy]

I gave up hate a long time ago, it just takes too much energy to maintain.

These days I just accept that humanity is a lost cause and I celebrate the occasional exceptions to that state of affairs.

I recommend it, way less stress involved...

---

I think most people misinterpretted the entrenchment thing. I think most people support the Green's preference that water never ever be privatised, without realising the entrenchment clause was the government's way of ensuring that protection remained in place.

Without it, future governments can overturn any protections, and flog off control of our water to the highest bidder.

Probably Nestle, or Schweppes..

Then gods help anyone trying to capture rainwater. It'll be a  breach of copyright. Monsanto all over again.

No by doing it set a precedent that future governments could entrench their own policies thereby tying the hands of further governments.  There is already provisions within the bill to stop provitisation of water in 2 cases requiring a super majority of 75% for it to happen PLUS a majority of ratepayers voting for the sale.

Simple fact - they tried to sneak it in  in the dead of night under urgency, got caught and had to back track fast.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

The precedent already exists. There was no setting involved.

You'd think, considering it was WATER, a vital resource without which everything dies, as much protection as possible would be a universal desire.

Unless of course some thought potential profit was more important.

[Wainuiguy]

The issue with hate speech is defining what it is. As someone posted above there is already statutes on the books the details severe penalties for speech that incites violence towards others of different race, religion, political leaning and sexual preference.

The government simply couldn't define what they wanted to stop in the new law. Ardern stated "you will know it when you see(hear) It " - a dangerous statement. Because what one person believed is hate speech may simply be something they strongly disagree with.

Already someone here stated they would like misogyny to be included as hate speech. Would they expect a comedian to to arrested and charged for telling a sexist joke?

The danger in failing to CLEARLY define hate speech is that it could be perceived as anything offensive by someone else. Then it could be defined as speaking out against the government or government officials. I think we can all agree that would be a truly terrible place to find ourselves.

[Lilith7]

There's no shortage of evidence on the dangers of misogyny. There are rather a lot of 'someone's' who want the issue of misogyny included .
It' s a well established & well known pathway to violence - which some prefer not to acknowledge.

The UK.
https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_com...t-s-needed

"Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a hate crime. This follows the example of Nottinghamshire Police in 2016, followed by another 10 police forces since.

Classing misogyny as a category of hate crime would not make anything illegal that isn’t already. The law has not changed – it is solely about how we record these crimes.

We have taken action such as calling on police chiefs to make misogyny a hate crime nationwide, revealing data that gender is the most common basis for hate crime attacks on women, supporting the recent bill heading to the House of Lords, contributing to the Law Commission consultation on the subject, and launching a MP letter writing campaign to support the change.

We live in a country where sexism is accepted. Where women are constantly subjected to inappropriate behaviour that is seen as the entitled right of men.

This sexism was no more obvious than in the reaction to the decision. People – mainly a certain kind of man – howled in protest:

‘Does that mean we can’t wolf-whistle anymore?’

‘Mother-in-law jokes are out!’

‘It’s political correctness gone mad’.

This attitude demonstrates how widely accepted the belief is that men are more entitled to behave misogynistically than women are entitled not to be treated hatefully.

Violent crimes against women in our society are not taking place in an otherwise equal world. They are built on and held up by locker room banter, rape jokes, ‘give us a smile’, cat-calling and, yes, even mother-in-law jokes.

Until we have a world that respects women, we need to recognise this behaviour for what it is – the basis on which violent crimes in our society are not only committed, but carried out largely with impunity and a lack of adequate response from police."


The USA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/mi...crime.html

“Men who kill women do not suddenly kill women, they work up to killing women.”
— Caroline Criado Perez, author of “Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men”

Sarah Everard in London. Soon Chung Park, Hyun Jung Grant, Suncha Kim, Yong Ae Yue, Delaina Ashley Yaun, Xiaojie Tan and Daoyou Feng in Atlanta.

Eight women, two continents apart, killed in the space of two weeks. The suspects in both cases are men.

In London, Ms. Everard disappeared while walking home from a friend’s house, and was found dead a week later. A police officer was charged with kidnapping and murdering her.

In Atlanta, a gunman stormed three massage parlors and shot and killed eight people — seven of them women, six of them Asian — raising speculation that the attack was racially motivated. A suspect was arrested that same evening.

Helena Kennedy, a member of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British Parliament, said during a debate on the policy. “Stop telling them to stay at home and be careful, and start finding those responsible for the violence.”

It is such a widespread, daily occurrence that it is rare to find a woman who hasn’t experienced some kind of sexual harassment or assault. Roughly one in three women around the world has been subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner, a family member, a friend, an acquaintance or a stranger, according to a W.H.O. report published this month. The perpetrator is almost always a man, the report notes, and rates are higher in poorer communities."
It also goes unreported because so much harassment — the uncomfortable staring, the catcalling, the lewd gestures, the public masturbation — is seen as simply normal nuisances that women have learned to put up with.

“We’re not joining the dots, nobody is making connections,” said Laura Bates, author of “Men Who Hate Women.” “There is a big picture here that we are just repeatedly missing. There are connections between the normalized daily behaviors that we brush off and the more serious abuses.”

[Wainuiguy]

There's no shortage of evidence on the dangers of misogyny. There are rather a lot of 'someone's' who want the issue of misogyny included .
It' s a well established & well known pathway to violence - which some prefer not to acknowledge.

The UK.
https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_com...t-s-needed

"Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a hate crime. This follows the example of Nottinghamshire Police in 2016, followed by another 10 police forces since.

Classing misogyny as a category of hate crime would not make anything illegal that isn’t already. The law has not changed – it is solely about how we record these crimes.

We have taken action such as calling on police chiefs to make misogyny a hate crime nationwide, revealing data that gender is the most common basis for hate crime attacks on women, supporting the recent bill heading to the House of Lords, contributing to the Law Commission consultation on the subject, and launching a MP letter writing campaign to support the change.

We live in a country where sexism is accepted. Where women are constantly subjected to inappropriate behaviour that is seen as the entitled right of men.

This sexism was no more obvious than in the reaction to the decision. People – mainly a certain kind of man – howled in protest:

‘Does that mean we can’t wolf-whistle anymore?’

‘Mother-in-law jokes are out!’

‘It’s political correctness gone mad’.

This attitude demonstrates how widely accepted the belief is that men are more entitled to behave misogynistically than women are entitled not to be treated hatefully.

Violent crimes against women in our society are not taking place in an otherwise equal world. They are built on and held up by locker room banter, rape jokes, ‘give us a smile’, cat-calling and, yes, even mother-in-law jokes.

Until we have a world that respects women, we need to recognise this behaviour for what it is – the basis on which violent crimes in our society are not only committed, but carried out largely with impunity and a lack of adequate response from police."


The USA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/mi...crime.html

“Men who kill women do not suddenly kill women, they work up to killing women.”
—  Caroline Criado Perez, author of “Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men”

Sarah Everard in London. Soon Chung Park, Hyun Jung Grant, Suncha Kim, Yong Ae Yue, Delaina Ashley Yaun, Xiaojie Tan and Daoyou Feng in Atlanta.

Eight women, two continents apart, killed in the space of two weeks. The suspects in both cases are men.

In London, Ms. Everard disappeared while walking home from a friend’s house, and was found dead a week later. A police officer was charged with kidnapping and murdering her.

In Atlanta, a gunman stormed three massage parlors and shot and killed eight people — seven of them women, six of them Asian — raising speculation that the attack was racially motivated. A suspect was arrested that same evening.

Helena Kennedy, a member of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British Parliament, said during a debate on the policy. “Stop telling them to stay at home and be careful, and start finding those responsible for the violence.”

It is such a widespread, daily occurrence that it is rare to find a woman who hasn’t experienced some kind of sexual harassment or assault. Roughly one in three women around the world has been subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner, a family member, a friend, an acquaintance or a stranger, according to a W.H.O. report published this month. The perpetrator is almost always a man, the report notes, and rates are higher in poorer communities."
It also goes unreported because so much harassment — the uncomfortable staring, the catcalling, the lewd gestures, the public masturbation — is seen as simply normal nuisances that women have learned to put up with.

“We’re not joining the dots, nobody is making connections,” said Laura Bates, author of “Men Who Hate Women.” “There is a big picture here that we are just repeatedly missing. There are connections between the normalized daily behaviors that we brush off and the more serious abuses.”

But we are not talking about physical crimes towards women - which have always occured and will likely always occur and in  general already have laws in place.  In some cases very specific laws like Man assaults woman - yet there is not law for woman assaults man - that is just assault.   We are talking about speech.

[Lilith7]

You may have missed the connection; again, the hate speech can & often does, leads to violent crimes.

And while women can be violent towards men, this is specifically about the strong connection between misogynistic comments & violent crimes against women by men.